I Already knew that both of the canidates were horrible. But I just realized something that most people don't think about. George Bush wants to Go at Iraq Alone, and with just our troops, which will not end up good. BUT, Kerry will most likely get other countries involved to help us, which could easily start WWIII, If we had France, Britain, Germany, etc. Involved in this war against the entire Middle East would not be good. Peace and Love, Dan
why wold they back us with kerry and not with bush tho?? i may sound confusing but it seems if they were gonna fight with the u.s. they wold be over there already if Bush asked them to go or not...
France and Germany won't be a part of any hostilities in Iraq or the Middle East. They have too much invested, politically, both internally and in the U.N. by staying out and critisizing Pres. Bush. They can gain more by insisting they share in the rebuilding contracts without investing a single soldier. It seems this was one of their complaints before the insurgents started to cause trouble last year. Great Britain has been involved in Iraq since day 1. They have contributed the second largest contingent of troops behind the U.S. and control the southern portion of Iraq. The biggest trick would be to keep Iran from meddling in internal Iraqi affairs. Iran has been stretching its muscle in the region lately. They resumed their Nuclear program. Even the U.N. is having trouble accepting the explanation its for their own energy needs (not while they are sitting over an ocean of oil). The equipment they are aquireing has a duel purpose, for conventional nuclear power and also processing weapons grade nuclear material. It wouldn't be much of a stretch to discover Iran has been giving aid and encouragement to Al Sadr.
Well, it would be naive to think that if Kerry is elected that all these countries that have backed away from us will all of a sudden rush to our aid. It's not likely going to happen. Besides, more troops won't solve anything. You cannot win this war (Bush even admitted this himself a few days ago - one of the few true things he's said while in office). This war is an endless war. More innocent people are going to continue to die for a hopeless cause, the only purpose of which is to line the wallets of the elites, while providing them with even more power and corruption. These elites are ultimately the ones responsible for starting these senseless wars.
Still, it just shows that were definitly screwed either way. It is either we vote for Kerry who will try to get other countries to help us and make the war even more global, or we vote for Bush who will go it alone and get our troops even deeper in this mess. But, on a side note, the Carlyle Group, owned by the Bush's and Bin Ladens, are Using Osama, who is working for them, To make these Terrorist attacks occur, 9/11 was completely funded By the CIA and Carried out By Osama, and other terrorists who falsely Believed in Osama's Message, although Osama is working for the CIA to carry out these attacks so the Carlyle Group gets Billions and Billions of dollars, and the globalists wet dream of New World Order gets carried out. Anyone who has eyes and a brain and isn't blind...read these links... http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html http://www.serendipity.li/wtc.htm http://www.infowars.com/resources.html http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/02-21-04/discussion.cgi.9.html (Former German Defense Minister Confirms CIA involvement in 9/11) Hope that opened your minds, and if you don't believe it, your entitled to your own opinion and atleast you have enough of an open mind to consider my opinions, thanks Peace and Love, Dan
Now I'm not saying these sites are realible and are false. However, I have been spending much time readings these things and i know a bit about english, logic and how to twist things around by words.... i saw many things like that by the first two sites. i think they are a bit too biased.
and ill informed about all aspects of life so read your bible and see were still fighting the same old war so that some long dead evil conqoring lord can use his army the people of israil against the people of babilon and copnquer tha world its quite boring so lets not get caught up in the petty politics of it go watch the lord of the rings same story were still fighting world war one
who father got america out of the great depression not won of these two god serving bastards that wont to conqer the world for the love of god and human rights but all these dreams are swept aside by the bloodied hands of the hipnitised that carry the cross of homiside shit wake up
now seing as they all started from the same old testament they all belive in the same god so when they fight there all fighting for the same god so whoever wins this war god wins. thats a clever plan if ever i saw one you cant loose if both armys are fighting in your name as for the american elections its the same principle there both on gods side and he wants war for population control. so who ever wins god wins again. clever bastard. no wonder every ones talking against god on here exept for peanuts whos a self confessed nut. wich youd have to be to bye into any of this bullshit
Do you really think it's better if America goes at it alone in fighting terrorism? Bush has already asked those countries for help, with limited cooperation. Kerry believes he can establish better relations with them and get more assistance in setting up intelligence networks worldwide to expose terrorist cells. He may not have much luck getting them to put troops in Iraq, who'd want to go into that quagmire? A war on terrorism isn't going to result in WWIII. The vast majority of Middle-Easterners oppose terrorism and want to live in peace, however they might feel about America or Israel or the rest of the Western world. And their governments are not going to rush to the aid of Al-Qaeda.
The United States is what most countries hate, no matter who the leader is. I don't see why people think Kerry is going to get elected into office and then be some miracle worker. That is simply putting too much faith in him. If Bush asked and they said no, then they will probably say the same to Kerry. And Kerry even said himself that he would have wanted to go to war even knowing what he knows now. That to me says that he's just pulling the whole "stop the war" crap to get votes. What about when he gets into office? He has no real plans. He wont know what to do.
Miracle worker? I never said Kerry would be that. Our current president went to war with Iraq without the support of the UN, against the recommendations of most of the other world powers and in spite of weapons inspectors telling him there was no evidence of WMDs. His go-it-alone, you're either with us or against us policies have turned world opinion ever more sharply against us. And you don't think that replacing him could open the possibility of new dialogues that are closed to Bush? Kerry will make an ass out of Bush at the debates in a battle of wits with an unarmed man. But then, Bush supporters will probably see Kerry as a bully.
Kinda like Bush in Iraq, huh? Y'know, personally speaking, it's been my experience that over here in the UK, people don't hate Americans as a rule. We just hate Republicans
My Aunt recently moved to Ireland. On a wall in a pub bathroom someone had written: "Don't hate Americans, hate their president" and under that, was "They didn't vote for him anyway" Not World War III. Vietnam II.
If I was a leader of a country, I would've said no to Bush too. Who would want to fight by the side of a leader like Bush? If there was any hope of gaining anything back with these countrys, and making alliances, it's gonna be in Kerrys hands. And about the debates...I can't wait for those. Those who see Kerry as a bully when he tears Bush up are those full-blooded hardcore Bush supporters that are too ignorant to see that Bush really is the shit of the world.
How about remembering that the Americans aren't "going it alone" even at the moment. United Kingdom Italy Poland Ukraine Netherlands Australia South Korea Romania Japan Bulgaria Denmark Thailand Honduras El Salvador Hungary Singapore Mongolia Azerbaijan Norway Latvia Portugal Lithuania Slovakia Czech Republic Albania Georgia New Zealand Estonia Kazakhstan Macedonia Moldova Tonga Armenia These countries are all currently allied with the US, and have troops on active duty in Iraq.
Thats a PR laundry list for the media to regurgitate to gullible sheep like yourself. Aside from the UK not other nation has contributed troops for combat roles and even with the UK troops, US troops comprise over 95% of the military activity on the ground. This is a US led neo-colonial invasion of aggression against another sovereign state, pure and simple.
Prove that. Seriously - prove it. You can't. Apart from quoting some conspiracy theorist who probably believes that titanic didn't sink, and no people went to the moon. Lets take an example of a country that is not listed there. Spain. They had active troops in Iraq, it was a major part of their recent election, the party that won that election promised removal of their troops from Iraq (which has happened). The party that lost didn't, despite being aware that the majority of voters didn't agree with that policy. Now - you tell me, why, if they didn't have troops there, would a government still claim to, despite being fully aware that they would probably lose the next election because of it? Would they let the media continue to regurgitate a lie that would get them voted out of government? No.. of course not... No one is denying its a US led invasion, and not an invasion I agree with at all, in fact i believe it to be the same as you do, a simple act of aggression against another sovereign state. The simple fact however, is that there are already a number of countries involved in this "war", and a change in US government isn't going to change that.
And Kerry said he would have went to war also - even after knowing there were no wmds. He sounds just as ignorant as Bush to me.